Aaahhh... I got it now. I was indeed confused...
Part of the problem came from the fact that I was assuming that
:a :b "xxx"^^xsd:integer.
was actually XSD-inconsistent... :-/
(so I was assuming that you are refering to RDF-inconsistency)
I understand your concern now, and I (obviously) concur:
I don't see the point of keeping this disctinction...
pa
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2012, at 17:45, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> > I read your proposal as :
> >
> > any graph containing ill-formed literals should be inconsistent under
> rdf-entailment
> >
>
> > but recognizing an ill-formed literal in the general case requires a
> knowledge of all possible datatypes.
> > So this makes it impossible to decide with certainty if a graph is
> rdf-consistent in the general case.
>
> I wasn't making a proposal. I was asking for clarification regarding the
> difference between ill-typed and inconsistent.
>
> > It differs from the current situation because, as you point out,
> > any RDF processor supporting a given entailment regime can decide with
> certainty if a graph is consistent or not under that regime -- although of
> course it can not say anything about its consistency in other regimes,
> which is ok.
> >
> > So all processors will agree that the following graph:
> >
> > :foo :prop "abc"^^xsd:integer .
> >
> > is consistent under rdf-entailment, and insconsistent under
> xsd-entailment;
> > and that the following graph:
> >
> > :foo a owl:Nothing.
> >
> > is consistent under rdf-entailment, xsd-entailment or rdfs:entailement,
> but inconsistent under owl-entailment.
> >
> > Again, my problem is not that different entailment regimes differ,
> > it is to make one entailment regime undecidable in practice,
> > especially the most basic one (rdf-entailment).
> >
> > I hope I made my point clearer.
>
> This sounds quite confused to me.
>
> You cannot have an ill-typed literal without a datatype map. The very
> definition of â€œill-typedâ€